Search

Résumé: Les nations minoritaires dans les États multinationaux évoluent dans un contexte parfois incertain et inhospitalier de leur particularité sociétale, politique et culturelle. Si leur situation minoritaire n'est en rien un frein à leur existence comme nation, elle peut néanmoins s'accompagner d'un certain sentiment de fragilité nationale et même d'une peur de disparaître. Ces nations minoritaires, quand l'État auquel elles appartiennent refuse de reconnaître leur particularisme et de leur permettre de le défendre, peuvent alors rapidement devenir des nations fragiles. Il est l'objet du présent article de définir et de préciser le concept de nation fragile, à l'aide d'une discussion théorique, conceptuelle et normative. Minority nations within multinational States often evolve within a context of great uncertainty when it comes to the protection of their distinctive political and cultural characteristics. While their minority condition in no way limits their existence as nations, it can nevertheless come with a certain feeling of national fragility and even a fear of disappearing. These minority nations, when the State to which they belong refuses to recognize their particularism and to allow them the necessary tools to defend it, can then quickly become fragile nations. In this article, we discuss, define and specify the meaning of the concept of fragile nations, putting the emphasis on its theoretical and normative dimensions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While the negative campaigning literature has witnessed tremendous growth in recent years, the precise targets of campaign negativity have not been fully explored, as candidates and their parties are largely treated as the same target. Likewise, although scholars are increasingly writing about the personalization of politics, this literature has not considered whether parties can “personalize” their opponents by focusing their messaging and attacks more on individual leaders than the parties they lead. In an attempt to bridge the gap between these two literatures, we develop the concept of negative personalization. Negative personalization, as we define it, is an emphasis on opposing party leaders in campaign communication more so than on the parties that they lead. Exploring recent election campaigns in Canada's largest province, we document the extent to which parties engage in negative personalization and suggest hypotheses for the factors leading to increased negative personalization. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This paper draws upon data collected from an online voting experiment to test the implications of “going negative” in a multiparty election campaign. Specifically, we investigate two sets of questions: First, does the attention and vote share that candidates receive vary according to the tone (positive/negative) of their election campaign? Second, does the attention and vote share that candidates receive vary according to whether or not all candidates engage in similar (positive/negative) campaigns? While studies of “negative campaigning” have been prominent in the American context, our work builds upon this literature by using an experimental design to test for their effects in a multiparty setting. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This research note tests the hypothesis that lobbying activities in Canada are primarily aimed at the members of the executive branch. It uses the data of the Canadian lobbying registry to measure the number of contacts between lobbyists and public office holders between the summer of 2008 and the summer of 2013. The results indicate that the majority of lobbying activities are aimed at the executive branch. However, it appears that the House of Commons is one of the most popular targets of lobbying activities. In fact, empirical evidence shows that numerous lobbying organizations are engaged in integrated strategies that consider both the legislative and executive institutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article deals with the controversy that arose in 2002–2005 over faith-based arbitration tribunals held in Ontario. It seeks to contribute to the existing literature on the question by looking at new empirical sources. The analysis focuses specifically on the public discourse of social actors who opposed the establishment of arbitration tribunals. The majority of those who opposed arbitration tribunals did not formulate their position in terms of an opposition between religion and feminist values. Rather, they focused their arguments on the supposed danger of Islam, which they perceived as an oppressive and alien religion. The controversy over religious arbitration becomes a way to claim a Western, “Canadian” identity that is also secular and Judeo-Christian. From this perspective, the Ontarian controversy can be related to European debates on Islam that emerged during the last decade (such as the cartoon controversy in Denmark, the debate on minarets in Switzerland, and the burqa prohibition in Belgium). [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This article uses quantitative and qualitative instruments to present an innovative content analysis of the English-language briefs presented by interest groups to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada during the 2007 consultations for the Growing Forward policy framework. Our analysis shows a proliferation in the number of actors interested in agricultural public policy as well as a diversification of their discussions, which are no longer structured solely around the idea of agricultural protectionism. Our results indicate that stakeholders' objectives in agriculture are highly fragmented, with some groups promoting an increased liberalization and other stakeholders strongly defending the recognition of the multifunctionality of agriculture. Considering these disparate pressures, the lexicographic analysis of the Canadian policy framework indicates that the Canadian government takes a balanced position between these contrasted interests while, nevertheless, putting forward arguments that are clearly in favour of greater agricultural liberalization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How are we to explain U.S. foreign policy, particularly policymaking on national security and homeland security, under the first administration of G. W. Bush? Who were the actors and what were the factors that produced what were, to say the least, controversial results? Looking beyond the speeches, statements and institutions, the security decisions can be seen as the work of “policy entrepreneurs.” This article considers who those entrepreneurs were and how they achieved their goal of transforming U.S. security policy. Three decisions are discussed: the pre-emptive war in Iraq, the legal redefinition of torture by the Bush administration, and the institutionalization of homeland security, in particular the Patriot Act. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]